Evidence for the existence of God (Part 3)

First topic message reminder :

The problem with discussions between theists and atheists is that eventually it comes down to the argument of not being able to prove a negative false. As a statistician, in my working life, I have often come across this as a problem. It really ends up as a lack of understanding of the concept of an hypothesis and the nature of the contrary position, the null hypothesis.
 
Consider the following example
 
Hypothesis 1 - There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. (My hypothesis or H1 for short)
 
In stating this I automatically generate a contrary (null) hypothesis which would be
 
Hypothesis 0 - There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. (The null hypothesis or H0 for short)
 
The null hypothesis is entirely a consequence of stating the first hypothesis. If H1 is not true then we would automatically assume that H0 was true.
 
At this point (courtesy of the Cottingley Fairies and Arthur Conan Doyle) I produce a set of photographs. On scientific scrutiny these are held to be jolly fine photographs and completely fake. At this point I retreat into my bedroom to sulk and it is held that H1 fails on the basis of no evidence and therefore we accept the null hypothesis viz. there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Postulating that at some time in the future someone may come up with evidence that confirms H1 in no way changes the argument. We are dealing with NOW and as of NOW there is no evidence and the hypothesis fails. We accept H0. Wish fulfillment does not give you a reason to accept H1 in spite of the lack of evidence.
 
So now lets look at the existence of God argument.
 
H1 - God exists (the theist position)
which then automatically generates a contrary position
H0 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
 
In passing it is worth noting that the atheist position is a default one. It does NOT require belief. It is simply what is left when the H1 proposition fails, however this is for another time.
 
Now atheists would claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore H1 fails. (In passing one might wonder why, if there is evidence for god, that the religion that has that evidence has not therefore swallowed up all the others who clearly would be lacking in this respect. Is simply a multiplicity of religions an argument for the non-existence of God I wonder?)
 
At this point many theists go for the 'You cannot prove god does not exist' argument. This is the hypotheses above the other way around.
 
H1 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
and
H0 - God exists (the theist position)
 
The atheists just shrug and the theists jump up and down with glee saying the null hypothesis has it, God exists. The problem is that when you consider what the null hypothesis is, you have to ask one crucial question. Is the null hypothesis compatible with a stated position of no evidence.
 
Consider
H1 - Unicorns exist
and hence
H0 - Unicorn do not exist
 
Is a non-existent unicorn compatible with no evidence for the existence of unicorns? Yes it is. Now ask yourself the question if the hypotheses are reversed. Is an existing unicorn compatible with no evidence? No it isn't. Where are the hoof prints and the unicorn poop!!
 
So here we reach the crux. Is a null hypothesis of H0 - God exists compatible with no evidence for God existing. Clearly, as with the unicorn, the answer is no.
 
Atheists do not have to prove God does not exist. It is a meaningless quest because, without evidence, there is no reason or logic in believing that god does exist.

polyglide wrote:Like all the false assumptions regarding evolution, only they are clearly wrong, when no one can deny the possibility of God creating everything is not only a possibility but a probability, when all things are cosidered.

Because I always consider magic and the paranormal as the most likely explanation. That's what all smart and superstitious people do.

Shirina wrote:Because I always consider magic and the paranormal as the most likely explanation. That's what all smart and superstitious people do.

 
The smart and superstitious people are making oodles of money from it but then feeling guilty about it.
 
:->>
 
Heretic

Heretic wrote:

Shirina wrote:Because I always consider magic and the paranormal as the most likely explanation. That's what all smart and superstitious people do.

 
The smart and superstitious people are making oodles of money from it but then feeling guilty about it.
 
:->>
 
Heretic

You have to wonder just how Bible publishers make any real money. I don't think I've ever paid for a Bible.

Religion is not about making money but saving souls.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-RL0BxX-LU

Unfortunately, Freemason, there is more money in religion than many corporations. In order to maintain the cash flow, religion hooks people by 'saving their souls'. The individual has to pay for the rest of his/her life for the privilege of being told they are worthless sinners, worthless without god.

No thank you.

Well said snowyflake,very true too.

When talking about religion I mean the Christian religion and when it is practised in the manner Jesus instructed.

Of course in everything you can mention someone will eventually turn it into a money based project, that is the fault of man.

I do not like any high church where money is involved or where abuse of any kind is involved, they are not Christian.

polyglide wrote:When talking about religion I mean the Christian religion and when it is practised in the manner Jesus instructed.

Wiki wrote:Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

It would be possible to redefine quadruped as cat but this causes confusion not least of all to the dog and the cow that are also quadrupeds.

It would be helpful if you do not redefine words from the English language as this can be confusing to an Englishman or a Scotsman or a Welshman or an Irishman or an American

polyglide wrote:Of course in everything you can mention someone will eventually turn it into a money based project, that is the fault of man.

I'm sure there is an exception to this but it just doesn't come to mind right now. I say this because there is an exception to nearly every generalisation.

polyglide wrote:I do not like any high church where money is involved

There is money involved in just about every kind of church, high or otherwise.

polyglide wrote:or where abuse of any kind is involved,

The abuse we know about already? The abuse we may find tomorrow? The abuse that comes to light due to the continued and ongoing enlightenment of man. One such future defined abuse might be the indoctrination of minors or the mentally disabled or mentally ill, each group being unable to make a rational or informed choice.

polyglide wrote:they are not Christian.

You can of course give us a definition of the word Christian and how it differs from the general meaning of the term, this is to mitigate any confusion caused by your redefinition of words [it might also be prudent to give a list of words in your definition that you have redefined together with their new meanings]

Heretic

A Chritian is one who believes in Christ and all he stands for and why he was born.

There is no other definition.

What there is of course are numerous so called religions that deviate from the true definition.

polyglide wrote:A Chritian is one who believes in Christ and all he stands for and why he was born..

Your misspelling of Christian , not mine. I'm sure this is a definition that leaves a lot of grey areas that would include people that are not Christian. Would this include people that don't think they need to live it?

polyglide wrote:There is no other definition..

There are over 30,000 denominations so that make at least 30,000 definitions of what a Christian is.

polyglide wrote:What there is of course are numerous so called religions that deviate from the true definition.

So please include in your definition sufficient detail that we can identify those that you call Christian and exclude those who are not. If you cannot do this perhaps we will find ourselves talking about a group of people that either do not or can not exist.

Heretic

Giving it to them really well today Heretic my man,well done,liked the post to pg regarding satan.  

polyglide wrote:A Chritian is one who believes in Christ and all he stands for and why he was born.

There is no other definition.

What there is of course are numerous so called religions that deviate from the true definition.

There is nothing in your definition about following Christ's example. Believing in Christ is not the same thing. For instance, you believe in Satan, but I presume you do not emulate him.

I stated very clearly that a Christian does the best to follow the example of Jesus.

Satan I do believe exists and has to be avoided and all he stands for.

I believe in murder but I do not intend to become involved.??????

polyglide wrote:I stated very clearly that a Christian does the best to follow the example of Jesus.

Not in the definition you provided. That's why I pointed out its inadequacy.

polyglide wrote:Satan I do believe exists and has to be avoided and all he stands for.

I am aware that you believe in Satan and Jesus, I was questioning your definition. If there is no necessity to follow Jesus's example, then neither is there any need to follow Satan's. Your belief, by analogy with your definition as stated, qualifies you as a Satanist. Your actions are irrelevant.

polyglide wrote:I believe in murder but I do not intend to become involved.??????

Do you mean you believe that murders take place? 'I believe in murder' is the same form as 'I believe in the death penalty'.

No, I believe that murder takes place, therefore I believe in murder but do not agree that it should occur.

The same applies to anything else that exists and some I agree with others I do not.

It would help, PolyGlide, if you gave us a definition of a Christian that gave us enough detail where we could say that everyone that met your definition was a Christian and that everybody that didn't meet your definition was defiantly not a Christian.

If you are unable to give such a definition then we are going to have a great deal of confusion when talking about Christians.

Heretic

polyglide wrote:When talking about religion I mean the Christian religion and when it is practised in the manner Jesus instructed.

Hmmmmm, seems to me that no one is getting that right. Would you say that you yourself are emulating Jesus, polyglide? As a Christian, you know yourself that you cannot attain the purity of spirit that Jesus allegedly had. Which means that no one can practise christianity in the manner that Jesus instructed. Therefore it is an unattainable goal. Saying that the world would be a better place if we all 'practised christianity in the manner that Jesus instructed' is rather ridiculous don't you think? Not logical or reasonable or rational.

polyglide wrote:Of course in everything you can mention someone will eventually turn it into a money based project, that is the fault of man.

Sorry, but religion is a business no different to any other commodity-selling organisation or corporation. The only difference is you don't get anything for your money. Sort of like a con. They tell you what you want to hear because you are too frightened and egotistical about dying and you pay them for the privilege.

polyglide wrote:I do not like any high church where money is involved or where abuse of any kind is involved, they are not Christian.

Every single church and religion on the planet is in it for the money. If you are not paying your 10% to the church you are not a true Christian. Tithing is a commandment. As a Christian, if you don't support your local church you are not following the apostles commandments. http://www.openbible.info/topics/paying_tithes

One of the many reasons that religion is a con.

polyglide wrote:No, I believe that murder takes place, therefore I believe in murder but do not agree that it should occur.

Your command of the English language does not improve. Your statement should end after the word 'place'. There is no point in continuing with an ambiguous statement which you then have to qualify. Your example is easily spotted as an error, since it is difficult yo find anyone who would claim to be in favour of murder - even those who practise it would not call it murder.

polyglide wrote:The same applies to anything else that exists and some I agree with others I do not.

This is true enough and I can point to many things with which I do not agree, though I avoid misleading statements like 'I believe in X' when I mean 'X is something that exists'. However I restrict my agreement/disagreement to things which exist and do not make any claims for things that do not (especially arbitrarily chosen non-existent things like gods - there is no objective basis for agreeing that any exist, and so there cannot be any objective basis for accepting some and rejecting others).

If we were made aware of the existance of God through proof as opposed to belief then there would be no need for faith.

Everyone would be a Christian and all live the life intended.

The problem is Satan and the inability of man to recognise his own limitations.

God stated clearly that there would be false Gods and to be aware of them and avoid them and failure to do so is self evident in the state of the world.

I can agree that faith exists because there is no proof of God.

polyglide wrote:If we were made aware of the existance of God through proof as opposed to belief then there would be no need for faith.

I never was clear why faith was required. Proof of God's existence + obedience would accomplish the same task. It was the option put before Adam and Eve and it would do away with the injustice of inherited sin.

polyglide wrote:Everyone would be a Christian and all live the life intended.

Not necessarily so as in Genesis 1 through 3 (any version).

polyglide wrote:The problem is Satan

If God's existence was made clear then presumably Satan's would be also.

polyglide wrote:and the inability of man to recognise his own limitations.

I think man's inability to recognise his limitations is why he has been able to progress from rubbing two sticks together to putting footprints on the moon.

polyglide wrote:God stated clearly that there would be false Gods and to be aware of them and avoid them and failure to do so is self evident in the state of the world.

Yes but you battle not those with false gods but with those that have no gods at all.

Heretic

Yes and I feel so sorry for them.

polyglide wrote:Yes and I feel so sorry for them.

Is condescension the right attitude?

No, to feel for the unenlightened is.

polyglide wrote:Yes and I feel so sorry for them.

Heretic wrote:Is condescension the right attitude?

polyglide wrote:No, to feel for the unenlightened is.

To feel for them? No, that's not right. To feel with people, to empathise with them.

I try to embrace people, to love them for who they are right now rather than for who they once were or might become.

I wish, to use your word, to enlighten you. I wish to help you stop putting your life on hold. I walked away from the hypocrisy of trying to live an ideal that was not possible. The truth came to me when I realised that any truth that cannot be lived is a lie. I do not belittle or walk away from the good that Christians do although what I think of as good in what they do is probably different from what they think of as good.

I now am firmly planted in the here and now, making a difference now and not in some far distant future. I make a difference for people I know and some that I don't, for people of whatever belief system because belief systems whether they be political or religious separate us rather than unite us.

I firmly believe that the slavery that religions uses to bind people far and away does more damage to a hurt and struggling world than the tiny bit of good it appears to teach.

I might hear you say that you do not participate in religion and that this is because you have a 'faith' but that is just playing with words, we all know that each man describes his own religion as faith and everybody else's as religion.

Heretic

I can't say I'm too bothered about being considered 'unenlightened' by someone who claimed the theory of evolution suggests all snowflakes should be identical (or words to that effect). That sort of 'enlightenment' would have us still living in caves.

As I have stated several times previously, I am only intersted in what follows the birth of Jesus.

Anything prior to this is of no reverlance to present day mankind, it is only through him that man can be saved.

I have never said all snowflakes should be the same, God gave us variety to enjoy in many different forms, there is far more sense in understanding this than all the nonsense of evolution. {evolution in this respect I refer to creation.]

polyglide wrote:As I have stated several times previously, I am only intersted in what follows the birth of Jesus.

I assume interested rather than intersted.

So we shouldn't be interested either?

polyglide wrote:Anything prior to this is of no reverlance to present day mankind, it is only through him that man can be saved.

So Original Sin and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is of no consequence to modern man. Then there is no need for a messiah.

You might think I'm being pedantic but I do not want to guess what you mean, I would far rather you say clearly what you mean.

Your words are the only clue I have to what you want to say and if you mean one thing and say something different then who is at fault. Not spelling words correctly doesn't help either.

Heretic

Anything prior to the birth of Jesus will be considered by God under the terms he set for them at that time.

The wrong spelling of a word does not change the meaning and if you know it is not the correct spelling then you know exactly what is meant and that is all that matters, my spelling mistakes are typing errors for which I appologise.

polyglide wrote:

I have never said all snowflakes should be the same

I know that. You claimed evolution would have us believe they should all be the same. This is simply untrue. The point being anyone who is either that ignorant of science or who has to be that disingenuous in order to try and make a point probably shouldn't be pitying a lack of enlightenment in others.

polyglide wrote:The wrong spelling of a word does not change the meaning and if you know it is not the correct spelling then you know exactly what is meant and that is all that matters, my spelling mistakes are typing errors for which I appologise.

So am I correct in attributing any meaning on a word because I think you might of spelled it incorrectly. That means you might write the word God but I might presume you misspelled it and really meant the word Satan. Words are the principle means of communication here and if you are careless with the way you use them then it will only be you to blame if people misunderstand you. Words are important and unless you spell them properly people will not be certain what you mean. I do not mean to embarrass you, I am just trying to help you communicate clearly.

Heretic

polyglide wrote:A

The wrong spelling of a word does not change the meaning and if you know it is not the correct spelling then you know exactly what is meant and that is all that matters, my spelling mistakes are typing errors for which I appologise.

Of course the spelling can change the meaning, especially if it forms another valid word.

If you were to try to write "God bucked me up" then getting the first letter of the second word wrong might not convey the intended meaning.

I agree in an unusual case that may be the fact, however, not when the content of the remainder is taken into consideration along with the matter in question.

You keep moving the goalposts, PG. Not the sign of an honest man who feels confident in their beliefs.

polyglide wrote:As I have stated several times previously, I am only intersted in what follows the birth of Jesus.

Anything prior to this is of no reverlance to present day mankind, it is only through him that man can be saved.

I have never said all snowflakes should be the same, God gave us variety to enjoy in many different forms, there is far more sense in understanding this than all the nonsense of evolution. {evolution in this respect I refer to creation.]

You do realize, of course, that Christianity is really just a messianic cult that had the good fortune of attracting the interest of a Roman emperor ... right? The whole idea of even needing a messiah or him being the only doorway to salvation is precisely what cults do. They try to make the members dependent on the cult for just about everything. It's all about charismatic leadership and preying on the vulnerable - which is why Christian missionaries don't waste their time going to Pyongyang or Beijing or Moscow. They go to places where there is rampant poverty, no education, and lots of disease - places where people would worship a fat ground sloth if they thought it would improve their lives. And with zero education, they'll eat up all the magical superstition regarding talking snakes and virgin births, accept it as true, and not even bat an eyelash.

Modern day cults do the same - Jim Jones, those LDS extremists in Texas, the Branch Davidians, Heavens' Gate ... they go after the poor, the disenfranchised, the desperate, the lonely. Cults offer a sense of belonging, a family-type atmosphere, and a convenient savior that will deliver them from the hardships of life. Just because Christianity got big and popular doesn't make it any less of a cult.

Now, if you want to be a part of the cult, that's great. But to say that only your messiah is the right one and only by joining your cult will I be "saved," well ... ahem ... that's exactly what the cult leadership wants you to think. It's a political mechanism - you would never abandon the cult if you thought the only path to salvation was to stay in the cult. And staying in the cult makes the cult leaders very, very happy.

Heh, I was watching a TV preacher last night, and every row of pews had a collection BUCKET sitting next to it. Yeah ... a flippin' bucket. Not a collection plate, a collection BUCKET! I mean, how pretentious is that? Yes, staying in the fold makes the leadership giddy with glee.

I belong to no cult, I believe that Jesus came to save mankind who had reached a point of no return in terms of evil.

Had Jesus not done so, mankind would have perished long ago, mankind is nearing the same stage at the present time and the result is in the balance between good and evil.

polyglide wrote:I belong to no cult, I believe that Jesus came to save mankind who had reached a point of no return in terms of evil.

Had Jesus not done so, mankind would have perished long ago, mankind is nearing the same stage at the present time and the result is in the balance between good and evil.

Heh, yes, you belong to the messianic cult led by Jesus and who still leads it via proxy. You can claim you aren't a member, but if you think that Jesus is coming back to save us all, you are, in fact, a member. Simply rejecting the fellowship of the cult does not mean you haven't succumbed to it. But in fact you're a part of the messianic apocalyptic cult focusing on the End Times and view the word in exceptionally negative ways, often in contravention of reality.

Most of the secular nations are growing and doing well. They are, in fact, doing better than stupidly religious America which seems to be nose-diving toward the bottom of the list (in terms of industrialized nations). Our biggest competitor, China, is officially atheistic. Some non-Christian nations like India aren't doing too, too badly either. India now has the largest population of middle class in the world. America's middle class is shrinking like cotton in the washing machine.

Now, instead of Wal-Mart stores popping up on every corner, it is the ubiquitous "Dollar Store" where cheaply and shoddily made goods are offered for usually $5 or less. The fact that more and more Americans are willing to buy a container of cleaning liquid that will melt your face off just breathing it instead of buying a cleaner with a nice lemony scent is just one sign of how we're sinking. People don't see the details and instead expect a collapse to take place almost instantly - so as long as we're on an elevator taking us slowly to the bottom, it's okay. It's only bad if the elevator suddenly plunges.

So if our nation is so dedicated to God, where is he? Where is our reward? Where is our blessing? How come prayers aren't being answered? Oh, I know ... it's because God wants a secular, openly atheistic nation like China to be the dominant force in the world. Right ... how could I not have seen that!

There is,obviously, no evidence for the existence of 'God' - how could there be? It is an archaic easy-answer, as we all know.

polyglide wrote:I belong to no cult, I believe that Jesus came to save mankind who had reached a point of no return in terms of evil.

Had Jesus not done so, mankind would have perished long ago, mankind is nearing the same stage at the present time and the result is in the balance between good and evil.

Once upon a time there lived .......



......... and they all lived happily ever after.

Heretic

There is none so etc;

You only have to look at the state of the world to see where it is heading, no one will live happily ever after, they will not even live happily at all under the present circumstances, man is his own worst enemy, there are the alright Jacks, however, there are far more that are not alright and there is no prospect of things improving for them or the world as a whole.